The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“AOUSC”) provides legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to the federal judiciary. AOUSC employees carry out a variety of tasks in support of the judiciary, such as ensuring that federal public defender programs are well-run and that information technology systems are secure, but AOUSC employees do not themselves decide individual cases or participate in any way with the decision process (in contrast to, for instance, a judge’s law clerks). Nonetheless, the AOUSC Director, James C. Duff, has barred all AOUSC employees — from the human resources specialist to the facilities manager, from the budget analyst to the employees in charge of maintaining the court’s public electronic records system — from a broad range of political activities that are open to virtually all other federal employees, including expressing their personal views publicly or on social media about partisan candidates for office, attending events for political parties or party candidates, joining a political party, and making donations (however small) to parties or partisan candidates. Because many partisan candidates are candidates for reelection to offices they currently hold, the ban on AOUSC employees’ speech regarding candidates encompasses in some instances speech about AOUSC employees’ own currently-serving elected officials. The AOUSC has asserted that the Code provisions are necessary to convey “the unity of purpose between the AO and the courts” and “to align ourselves more consistently with the Court Code,” i.e., the Code of Conduct that applies to judges.

In March 2018, the month the new Code became effective, the ACLU-DC wrote to Director Duff expressing concern about employees’ speech rights asking that nine specific restrictions on political speech and association be rescinded. Director Duff replied that the Code was “necessary to maintain the public’s confidence in the Judiciary’s work” — an interest that he believed “extended beyond” the interest in “prevent[ing] the appearance of corruption in the Legislative and Executive Branches.”

Because the vague and speculative interests asserted by the agency do not outweigh AOUSC employees’ rights to engage in core political speech and associational activity, the ACLU-DC sued Director Duff on behalf of two AOUSC employees to enjoin nine restrictions of the new Code on First Amendment grounds. Our clients are Lisa Guffey, a Supervisory Attorney Advisor whose job is to assess whether federal defender offices and court panel attorney programs across the country are properly resourced, operating effectively, and complying with relevant administrative policies and procedures, and Christine Smith, an IT Liaison whose responsibilities include making sure that the IT needs of federal public and community defenders are addressed, and making policy recommendations regarding cybersecurity. Both employees have had long and distinguished careers including years of federal government service; their political activities have never been as restricted as they are under the new AOUSC Code. Both would be currently participating in political activity with respect to upcoming or ongoing electoral races if not for the Code, which since it went into effect has already deterred them from donating money, expressing their views online, and attending a candidate event.

The complaint and motion for preliminary injunction were filed in May 2018.

In August 2018, the court granted our motion for a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the government from enforcing 7 of the 9 restrictions we challenged. The injunction protects the rights of more than a thousand government employees to express their views publicly about partisan candidates for office (including on social media), join political parties, attend candidate events, and make candidate contributions.

Both parties moved for summary judgment in the summer of 2019, and briefing finished in early fall. The plaintiffs asked the court to extend the preliminary injunction to all 9 restrictions we challenged and make it permanent.

Date filed

May 31, 2018



Stay informed

ACLU of the District of Columbia is part of a network of affiliates

Learn more about ACLU National